urbanMSP

Suburban counties rise up against Met Council

The Twin Cities’ five suburban counties are digging in their heels against the Metropolitan Council, which they say created a long-term transportation plan that essentially ignores suburban and rural needs.

At a meeting Monday, leaders from the five counties presented a rare joint response to a new Met Council transport plan, flexing their collective muscle before the council’s top leader....

We can talk to each other all we'd like about the transit future we'd like to see, but this is the reality that MetCouncil has to operate under. Changing the attitudes which have both created our current system, and which perpetuate that system needs to be the focus.

LOL @ Matt Look responding to this article (riddled with typos): http://finance-commerce.com/2014/09/sub ... nt-1098034

That is the chair of the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority, folks.

Well, that was...special.

"Raising taxes to pay for roads is reckless, you fool! Now, Washington, where's my critical infrastructure improvement?"

Also the assumed tax sources have to be reasonable, but I see no reason why an MPO couldn't assume, say, a raise of a 1/4 cent transit capital funding sales tax to 1 cent (edit: not necessarily saying the Met Council should do this, just saying that the fiscal constraints restriction does not seem to be an excuse for not proposing a functional comprehensive transit system in this plan).

I hate seeing wrong statements on message boards (what a dork right?) so I just wanted to clarify that this is not an acceptable practice under federal rules. In fact, this is exactly what the federal government is trying to avoid. You cannot assume revenues that are not reasonable within current law and practice. Current law does not allow for an additional 1 cent sales tax and past practice does not allow for assuming the passage of a law supporting an additional 1 cent sales tax. The fiscal constraint of the TPP Current Revenue Scenario is actually quite aggressive in assuming that we'd capture $1.7 billion+ in New Starts funding over the first 10 years (even FTA said this was unrealistic and aggressive) and we'd have hundreds of millions of new state money that has historically been a huge challenge to secure.

I would also note that, if you haven't read it, the 2030 Transit Master Study was the primary system study that led to the corridors in our system: http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/ ... 5ec352.pdf

It had to balance cost, performance, and regional balance.

CTIB's revenues are fully committed in the 2040 TPP through the Program of Projects list of corridors and you can find more information at mnrides.org and search for Transit Investment Framework. At some point, their revenue stream will be used entirely to pay off bonds and pay for operations.

past practice does not allow for assuming the passage of a law supporting an additional 1 cent sales tax.

What is the sales tax in the metro? 7 or 8 cents or so? Isn't there a bill in the Senate currently proposing to raise the sales tax for transit in the metro from 1/4 to 1 cent? Can you point to federal guidance or case law stating that the Fiscal Constraints regulation prevents MPOs from assuming any source of funding but one which is currently or has previously been law?

And as long as I have someone who probably knows, can you explain why the Current Revenue Scenario assumes a 30% drop in revenue from property taxes over the term of the plan?

past practice does not allow for assuming the passage of a law supporting an additional 1 cent sales tax.

What is the sales tax in the metro? 7 or 8 cents or so? Isn't there a bill in the Senate currently proposing to raise the sales tax for transit in the metro from 1/4 to 1 cent? Can you point to federal guidance or case law stating that the Fiscal Constraints regulation prevents MPOs from assuming any source of funding but one which is currently or has previously been law?

And as long as I have someone who probably knows, can you explain why the Current Revenue Scenario assumes a 30% drop in revenue from property taxes over the term of the plan?

Here is one resource. However, I can tell you that federal DOT staff also play a strong role in making sure MPO plans meet federal laws and intent. We can't reasonably assume the legislature will pass an expanded sales tax when half the legislature isn't even proposing it.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/guidfinconstr_qa.cfm

The property taxes in the plan primary represent the county regional railroad authority shares of capital projects for transitways. The plan only assumes the funds that counties have identified for specific projects and there are no specific projects identified after 2025 yet. Some counties are also running up against levy limits and more and more of their future revenues are going toward debt service, which the plan does not account for because it doesn't have to. Thus, the revenue is project specific and capital specific, so you can't really track it over time.

I would also note that the more projects that the plan shows as "funded," the less likely there would be legislative support for additional funding for transit. This is already becoming a problem with communication despite the fact that CTIB is basically fully committed in their plan. It doesn't do much good to show a plan as funded when you don't actually have the funds, unless you are aggressively seeking federal funds...and they are broke too.

Thank you for the information on fiscal constraints. The guidance explicitly states that new taxes are reasonable to assume for planning purposes "if there is clear evidence of sufficient support (both governmental and public)". Can you explain what clear evidence of support the Met Council had for the half-cent sales tax hike assumed in the 2040 TPP? Was a three-quarter cent hike considered and rejected for lack of support? Or did the Met Council just rely on Mark Dayton's legendary, never-failing political acuity to predict that the Legislature would support his plan over that of the DFL caucus?

the more projects that the plan shows as "funded," the less likely there would be legislative support for additional funding for transit.

This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I also have heard legislators dismiss the report because it's the same plan from the 2030 TPP but with a bigger price tag (in fact it is a more limited plan with a bigger price tag). I think that with a document like this it would be more effective to play to ribbon-cutting fantasies to win allies for transit. That strategy would also dovetail nicely with fulfilling the Met Council's mission to comprehensively plan for transportation in the Twin Cities, but that's just gravy of course.

Thank you for the information on fiscal constraints. The guidance explicitly states that new taxes are reasonable to assume for planning purposes "if there is clear evidence of sufficient support (both governmental and public)". Can you explain what clear evidence of support the Met Council had for the half-cent sales tax hike assumed in the 2040 TPP? Was a three-quarter cent hike considered and rejected for lack of support? Or did the Met Council just rely on Mark Dayton's legendary, never-failing political acuity to predict that the Legislature would support his plan over that of the DFL caucus?

There are no new taxes assumed in the 2040 TPP. The "Increased Revenue Scenario" is not part of the fiscally constrained plan and assuming the half cent increase would not be reasonable given the amount of scrutiny and lack of support in the House. The basis of the Increased Revenue Scenario was the Transportation Finance Advisory Committee report released in 2012 which had support from a broad range of stakeholders when it was developed. The Economic Competitiveness scenario was deemed to be the most realistic list of projects and revenues that could be passed in the legislature, but it is not a limiting proposal in terms of what could be explored.

Thus, the Increased Revenue Scenario represents what could be built if the Governor's transportation package were to pass. However, if the bill were to pass, the plan would need to be amended to reflect the "real" revenue and actual projects with costs would have to be identified. Right now, it represents a vision.

Anyone know Randal O'Toole? I heard him talk at the State Office Building yesterday. When he was finally done I wanted to punch a wall. Some of his talk was criticism of the Met Council and how it has too much influence over a large area (he said even the St. Cloud area is influenced by the Met Council), criticized the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan including investment in rail and transit oriented development (according to him development along roads and freeways never need a subsidy).

He's a well known anti-transit writer with the Cato Institute. Pro-sprawl, anti-walkability, as apparently that's what the market demands.

Why don't the pro-transit, pro-walkability, pro-urban folks try and stop funding for anti-transit, anti-walkable, anti-urban development on the fringes? I never hear of that happening in reverse -- at least, not here.

Randal O'Toole is a faux libertarian who has never seen a subsidy of car culture he didn't like. But he is positive that people choose cars and auto-oriented land uses because it's their preference, not because it is heavily subsidized and alternatives made nearly illegal.

You know what would be a great idea? Requiring a license to ride in a bike lane. That'll really help releave people's underlying preferences.